A theory of chewing-out frequency.

Jennifer Fulwiler has a decent bit in NCR today called "Why My Big Family Is Not Overpopulating The Earth."  Personally, I have always liked Simcha's writing on her huge green family.

I have a theory that the frequency at which you get chewed out for the carbon footprint of your children increases exponentially by the number of kids:  

𝝓(n) = 𝝓₁ e^k(x,y)n

where 𝝓(n) is the frequency of being chewed out for having n children, 𝝓₁ is the frequency of being chewed out for having 1 child, and the growth constant k depends on where you live.  

(The value of k is larger in San Francisco than in Peoria. Let's be charitable; maybe if you spent all your time in San Francisco, you'd probably think the world had too many people too.)

 So, in many places, one to three kids hardly raises an eyebrow.   At four kids, I only get a small fraction of the negative comments that a mother of five would have, i.e., 1/e^{k(Minneapolis)}.  

Anyway, I often appeal to diversity.  "It takes all sizes of families to make a healthy, sustainable population distribution!" I say cheerfully.    

I don't generally show them pictures of bell curves, although I'm tempted to.

Comments

[Christy P.]

Come to Utah - with 4 you just hit our average. With *only* two I'm an odd duck here.

[bearing]

Heh, perhaps the value of k is negative in UT.

[bearing]

Though I just looked it up, and at least in 2006 the total fertility rate in Utah was "only" 2.63 children per woman. That is only half a kid more than in Minnesota, but it sure makes for a different feel. One tends to notice outliers.

[Amy F]

I love it! Mmm, nerdy math thoughts...

[Tabitha]

I live on the US/Mexico border (El Paso, TX) and truly don't get negative comments here. Not that many families have 7 kids, but many people are FROM families that were large. Our priest is from a family of 15!

I do feel the stares and negative vibes when we travel, though!